New Thames Airport for London
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
Silvastrata to paraphrase John McEnroe "you can't be serious" £60 billion for Heathrow. At say £2 million an acre you could buy 30,000 acres; one hell of a lot of land.
Please also tell me how you propose to get a change of use from an airport to that of say offices or housing or industrial, and that would only result in outline planning permission.
What about all the on costs of removing all the air bridges, runways and more expensively all the fuel tanks and pipes.
Silvastrata to paraphrase John McEnroe "you can't be serious" £60 billion for Heathrow. At say £2 million an acre you could buy 30,000 acres; one hell of a lot of land.
Please also tell me how you propose to get a change of use from an airport to that of say offices or housing or industrial, and that would only result in outline planning permission.
What about all the on costs of removing all the air bridges, runways and more expensively all the fuel tanks and pipes.
Dear me, your cup is really half empty.
Windsor Views - 3,000 acres of prime real-estate, the largest development site in Europe, immediately adjacent to Europe's largest capital city. And as a responsible landlord and custodian, we are not simply selling the land, but developing it.
Change of land usage, you ask? Never you mind sir, the government is short of cash and will be signing tomorrow. No questions asked, just you wait and see.
Airbridges? That's, errm, legacy infrastructure, sir. We advertised them for £6,000 each on Ebay, and they will be gone tomorrow. Buyer collects. Yorkshire Airways want them, apparently.
Runways? What runways? Sir, sir, sir, the site already has much of its infrastructure already installed, including all of the roadways. Jump in the car, and I will show you around the estate layout. And all the roadways have center-lane and edge lighting too, as you can see. Nice, isn't it?
Err, yes, sir, the colours are quite novel, and the lampposts are quite short, but we will be changing them to the standard design soon - there was some trouble with the suppliers you know, they were from Albania.
Fuel pipes? What fuel pipes? Oh, I see what you mean. Sir, all the business premises will be oil fired, and all of the pipework has already been installed, for your convenience. Same with the electrical systems. Just plug in, and go.
We even have a security center, for your protection. That large tower thingy over there - 24hr protection, because we know that is important for your business. Don't worry, sir, we have thought of everything....
Jeeezzz, where is Lord Sugar, when you need him??
Skippy
So how many peeps on the dole in West London then? You've just closed Heathrow, stick to flying, your commercial awareness is zero.
So how many peeps on the dole in West London then? You've just closed Heathrow, stick to flying, your commercial awareness is zero.
LHR has the lowest employment per acre of anywhere in London. A new Windsor Views business park would be the biggest boon ever to the area. Google for what happened to Covent Garden, when the market there closed down.
.
.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While terminals 1,2 & 3 are a national disgrace.
You really have no conception of LHR if you think the above is true in the last two years.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have said before there is more to Heathrow than just the airport. They will not need to redevelop the terminals into offices as there will be many office buildings standing empty in the thames valley that once housed aviation related companies supporting Heathrow.
They would also not be able to sell the land for anywhere near the amount you say to build houses as so many people in the area will have been made redundant, or had to move to the thames estuary area.
I really think you are underestimating the affect that closing LHR will have on that whole area.
There is a lot of construction going on at Heathrow at the moment. The airport is being transfomed into a world class facility and although people will, being british complain. It is in my opinion where people want to fly to/from and with the transport links currently being built, should be allowed to continue to grow. If it means the loss of one small village so be it. I doubt that many of the people that are against the third runway would actually want to see the airport close completely.
They would also not be able to sell the land for anywhere near the amount you say to build houses as so many people in the area will have been made redundant, or had to move to the thames estuary area.
I really think you are underestimating the affect that closing LHR will have on that whole area.
There is a lot of construction going on at Heathrow at the moment. The airport is being transfomed into a world class facility and although people will, being british complain. It is in my opinion where people want to fly to/from and with the transport links currently being built, should be allowed to continue to grow. If it means the loss of one small village so be it. I doubt that many of the people that are against the third runway would actually want to see the airport close completely.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS,
So you have answered 1 out of the 5 points set in your homework task, with a ludicrous suggestion that low costs airlines would want to use such a high cost airport.
You get 0%
As as for sellling off LHR, there really isn't that much space to sell, considering how compact the site is for such an important global facility. To suggest it employs such a low number of people per acre is ridiculous.
Just to clarify - who actually owns the land LHR is built on - is that owned by ADI, or UK govt? Either way, any land around the airport which is used for airport related activities is still private.
So you have answered 1 out of the 5 points set in your homework task, with a ludicrous suggestion that low costs airlines would want to use such a high cost airport.
You get 0%
As as for sellling off LHR, there really isn't that much space to sell, considering how compact the site is for such an important global facility. To suggest it employs such a low number of people per acre is ridiculous.
Just to clarify - who actually owns the land LHR is built on - is that owned by ADI, or UK govt? Either way, any land around the airport which is used for airport related activities is still private.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cardiff UK
Age: 69
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverstrata
In the spirit of cooperation may I point out that I think that Heathrow covers an area of nearer to 6,400 acres and not 3,000. Let's assume the site is 4 miles long (generous but based on 12,000ft long runways) and 2.5 miles wide ie 10 sq miles @ 640 acres per sq mile. Using your reasonable valuation of the site of £60 billion and an area of 3,000 acres, I make that £20,000,000 per acre. So lets multiply that by 6,400 and we arrive at a very reasonable valuation of £128 billion. Spend £50 billion on the new airport and we are left with a profit of £78 billion.
You have convinced me; of what I leave for you to work out.
In the spirit of cooperation may I point out that I think that Heathrow covers an area of nearer to 6,400 acres and not 3,000. Let's assume the site is 4 miles long (generous but based on 12,000ft long runways) and 2.5 miles wide ie 10 sq miles @ 640 acres per sq mile. Using your reasonable valuation of the site of £60 billion and an area of 3,000 acres, I make that £20,000,000 per acre. So lets multiply that by 6,400 and we arrive at a very reasonable valuation of £128 billion. Spend £50 billion on the new airport and we are left with a profit of £78 billion.
You have convinced me; of what I leave for you to work out.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverstrata
As good as radar may be, there is too much interference from hangar buildings, passenger terminals, food trucks etc to be highly accurate enough for controlling aircraft taxiing. Despite what you may believe, nothing beats physically looking out the window and seeing the planes when you're controlling their movement around the airfield. It's all very well to see a radar return as a dot on your screen, but that doesn't tell you exactly where the aeroplane's tail or wingtips are.
You seem to be familiar with Gatwick judging by your earlier posts. So I presume you fly into there often? If so, like I said before, ask the person in the know with your airline to contact NATS and arrange a tower visit. Although I work in the en-route control centre, I know the tower folks are equally as welcoming for pilots to come visit and see what goes on in the control room. With an appropriate request from the right channel it can be arranged.
I've been on the flight deck many times. Famil flights are still fairly common, although not as much as I would like. I see a number of new trainees coming through that have never seen a cockpit, which makes me wonder how much of an appreciation of the pilot's role and tasks they fully have. I would glady welcome going on more famil flights.
As you say, in the old days, the 'follow the greens' system was visual. But with the advent of milimetric ground radar, I see no technical problem to doing it in fog. Any reason why not?
Been to the tower many times, and seen how it works, but not for a few years due this absurd security issue. Equally, I have not seen a controller on the flight deck for decades, again due to this security issue (last company would not allow it whatsoever). Does your DofT realise they are making aviation LESS safe?
I've been on the flight deck many times. Famil flights are still fairly common, although not as much as I would like. I see a number of new trainees coming through that have never seen a cockpit, which makes me wonder how much of an appreciation of the pilot's role and tasks they fully have. I would glady welcome going on more famil flights.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackie
As good as radar may be, there is too much interference from hangar buildings, passenger terminals, food trucks etc to be highly accurate enough for controlling aircraft taxiing.
As good as radar may be, there is too much interference from hangar buildings, passenger terminals, food trucks etc to be highly accurate enough for controlling aircraft taxiing.
Jackie
I see a number of new trainees coming through that have never seen a cockpit, which makes me wonder how much of an appreciation of the pilot's role and tasks they fully have. I would glady welcome going on more famil flights.
I see a number of new trainees coming through that have never seen a cockpit, which makes me wonder how much of an appreciation of the pilot's role and tasks they fully have. I would glady welcome going on more famil flights.
Aeromad
... which will, of course, be lost in week 1's dole money...
... which will, of course, be lost in week 1's dole money...
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackie
It aides the controller in identifying the aircraft he can see out the window. Imagine looking at 8 or so A319s or B737s all painted in the same company livery. A quick glance at the ground radar will remind him the order they are on the taxiway.
It aides the controller in identifying the aircraft he can see out the window. Imagine looking at 8 or so A319s or B737s all painted in the same company livery. A quick glance at the ground radar will remind him the order they are on the taxiway.
This is the AMS system - showing primary imagery, secondary information, track trail and speed. What more does a controller need?
And as I said before - low vis delays are not in the taxying, but in the landing.
Jackie
(ATC familiarity flights) nothing at all to do with the DfT. Air Traffic Controllers, including trainees are still permitted to be in the cockpit on famil flights. It's more that company budgets restrict the access and availability. It's been a couple of years since my last famil flight.
(ATC familiarity flights) nothing at all to do with the DfT. Air Traffic Controllers, including trainees are still permitted to be in the cockpit on famil flights. It's more that company budgets restrict the access and availability. It's been a couple of years since my last famil flight.
It is the DofT that has banned jumpseat rides in the UK, and most of the airlines have interpreted that restriction as a blanket ban - including ATC familiarity flights.
This is fundamentally a DofT problem.
Flightman
I'm enjoying this, keep it up chaps, the noise issue in particular. How far do you think the noise of a 744 will travel across open water. Boris Island is not the great answer to noise people think it is.
I'm enjoying this, keep it up chaps, the noise issue in particular. How far do you think the noise of a 744 will travel across open water. Boris Island is not the great answer to noise people think it is.
And I don't know how you could suggest that approaches and departures over the Thames estuary can be anything like as bad as those same flights being over the center of London.
As far as surface radiated noise goes, which can be a nuisance with an aircraft on full thrust especially on high pressure days, noise deflectors along the runways (at a suitable distance) could greatly assist.
They are extensively used on European motorways, and are remarkably effective. Quite often, you don't even know that there is a busy motorway running right next to the town. Shame the English and American motorways do not have the same protection.
Obviously for aviation purposes, someone would have to calculate the optimum distance/height and frangibility of such fences, proportionate to flight safety.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 24th Nov 2011 at 20:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
now you suggest (auto) engineering could apply to noise reduction. Let's stick with the engineering challenge this airport poses in its own right.
now you suggest (auto) engineering could apply to noise reduction. Let's stick with the engineering challenge this airport poses in its own right.
However, one of the more immediate concerns, is to stop Cross-rail finishing at Abbey Wood. Before the government throws away the TBMs and waste a valuable opportunity to link our transport network. Some additional funding is urgently required to push Cross-rail east towards Boris Island.
.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then what, may I ask, is the point of ground radar? It must be good enough, otherwise airports would not invest £million in it.
And therein lies a great problem that your DofT seems incapable of addressing. They think they are making aviation safer, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Last edited by jackieofalltrades; 24th Nov 2011 at 16:58. Reason: missing words
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How far do you think the noise of a 744 will travel across open water. Boris Island is not the great answer to noise people think it is. 
Look at that other 'floating' airport, Chep Lap Kok.
Aircraft Noise
PS DfT not DofT.
Carry on.
Look at that other 'floating' airport, Chep Lap Kok.
Aircraft Noise
PS DfT not DofT.
Carry on.
Last edited by Flightman; 4th Jun 2012 at 08:30.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airports with modern A-SMGCS and selectable taxiway lights are not limited by taxiway guidance in low visibility, but protecting the LLZ for the ILS.
Yes, down the road at some point we'll have GBAS CATIII, work is already being done on reducing the LSA for certain aircraft types. Lessons learnt from the increased LSA required if an A380 is taxying next to the runway are being applied to other aircraft.
That still doesn't mean that an airport in the Thames Estuary would be free of the capacity issues every single other large airport has in fog.
Yes, down the road at some point we'll have GBAS CATIII, work is already being done on reducing the LSA for certain aircraft types. Lessons learnt from the increased LSA required if an A380 is taxying next to the runway are being applied to other aircraft.
That still doesn't mean that an airport in the Thames Estuary would be free of the capacity issues every single other large airport has in fog.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS,
First you try to apply motorway budgeting to a new airport, now you suggest the same engineering could apply to noise reduction. Let's stick with the engineering challenge this airport poses in its own right, and solve with devices which are relevant to aviation.
BHX has huge grass berms which provide some shielding to houses between the airport terminal complex and Martson Green.
Although I don't agree with this airport, it should be fairly obvious that it provides a massive net reduction in noise footprint, compared to Heathrow.
However, noise reduction alone does not create a business case for a new airport, nor is it remotely fesible to suggest welfare budgets can be slashed to pay for it - then you are just moving a problem of individual 'scroungers' to corporate welfaree 'scrounging' - of course the problem isn't s simple as that either, but that is one for Jetblast.
So, I repeat - £50bn investment, how do you propose an ROI on commercial terms, given the risks?
First you try to apply motorway budgeting to a new airport, now you suggest the same engineering could apply to noise reduction. Let's stick with the engineering challenge this airport poses in its own right, and solve with devices which are relevant to aviation.
BHX has huge grass berms which provide some shielding to houses between the airport terminal complex and Martson Green.
Although I don't agree with this airport, it should be fairly obvious that it provides a massive net reduction in noise footprint, compared to Heathrow.
However, noise reduction alone does not create a business case for a new airport, nor is it remotely fesible to suggest welfare budgets can be slashed to pay for it - then you are just moving a problem of individual 'scroungers' to corporate welfaree 'scrounging' - of course the problem isn't s simple as that either, but that is one for Jetblast.
So, I repeat - £50bn investment, how do you propose an ROI on commercial terms, given the risks?
How about doing something clever like linking it all together into a new Thames Barrier, road/rail bridge, and airport? Three or four budgets into one...?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have said before there is more to Heathrow
It is in my opinion where people want to fly to/from and with the transport links currently being built, should be allowed to continue to grow. If it means the loss of one small village so be it. I doubt that many of the people that are against the third runway would actually want to see the airport close completely.
It is in my opinion where people want to fly to/from and with the transport links currently being built, should be allowed to continue to grow. If it means the loss of one small village so be it. I doubt that many of the people that are against the third runway would actually want to see the airport close completely.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So building new runways, terminals, baggage transfer tunnels etc. wont solve the problem of an airport running at capacity?Not sure I understand the logic there.
The whole plan for the redevelopment of LHR is based on making the transfer of passengers and baggage easier and more streamlined. This will make it more viable as a hub. Crossrail will make it more easy to get to/from London for passengers using it as a starting/ending point. It is next to both the M25 and the M4 so easily accessible by road. The airport provides jobs to a large area of west London & the Thames valley.
What it really needs is a rail connection from the north, south and west that doesn't involve going into London and back out.
The whole plan for the redevelopment of LHR is based on making the transfer of passengers and baggage easier and more streamlined. This will make it more viable as a hub. Crossrail will make it more easy to get to/from London for passengers using it as a starting/ending point. It is next to both the M25 and the M4 so easily accessible by road. The airport provides jobs to a large area of west London & the Thames valley.
What it really needs is a rail connection from the north, south and west that doesn't involve going into London and back out.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jollisticks
How about doing something clever like linking it all together into a new Thames Barrier, road/rail bridge, and airport? Three or four budgets into one...?
How about doing something clever like linking it all together into a new Thames Barrier, road/rail bridge, and airport? Three or four budgets into one...?
That is exactly what has been proposed.
London needs a new Thames barrier anyway, costing about £20 billion, and the current Dartford crossing is just a mess, so throw all of these into the same melting-pot.
If you divide it up, you get:
Thames barrier £20 bn
Thames hydro project £5 bn
Road crossing £5 bn
Rail crossing £5 bn
Thames port facility £5 bn
Thames Airport £10 bn
Expenditure £50 bn
less sale of LHR £40 bn
Total expenditure £10 bn
Airport (saving) £40 bn
Sale of LHR £40 bn
Total savings £80 bn
But the last thing we need is for Boris to kick it all into the long grass, once more. Where would Paris be, if everything was still crunched up into Orly?
Prophead:
So building new runways, terminals, baggage transfer tunnels etc. wont solve the problem of an airport running at capacity?Not sure I understand the logic there.
So building new runways, terminals, baggage transfer tunnels etc. wont solve the problem of an airport running at capacity?Not sure I understand the logic there.
Even another commuter/domestic runway and terminal will not help, as that will simply add to the number of passengers interlining onto international flights - which the main airport and runways simply cannot cope with.
Heathrow needs two new international runways, plus a couple of domestic/commuter runways, to cope with its true potential. And even if you could do some radical bulldozing to the south, to put another runway there, there are no stands available - and there would still be a night curfew, and the west of London would still be blighted by the noise and emissions.
.
.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all froth. "Look at the shiny dream voters, here's what you could have one day" (I'll Be long gone by then but vote for me in the meantime)
London needs Runway 3 at LHR ASAP. The CBI is putting the thumbscrews on the Tory party, many of whom are not as "eco mental" as "call me dave". Anyhoo we'll have T2 in two years, T5 is working well now T5C is up and running and connectivity is being improved if BD folds into BA.
No airlines believe this Fantasy Island will realistically happen. BAA doesn't even believe it, if they did, they'd be trying to run it. Now Boris famously does NOT do detail, he's broad brush and lazy. (I do love him though!)
Incidentally, there is no actual policy as yet, that's why we don't know whether this proposal depends on a closed LHR.
Incidentally I know CDG has all that space, but it's not really that much better as an airport experience, it's just spread out more. I think Silverstrata's view of LHR is about five years out of date. The complaint about T2 being a poor experience, present tense shows that much.
London needs Runway 3 at LHR ASAP. The CBI is putting the thumbscrews on the Tory party, many of whom are not as "eco mental" as "call me dave". Anyhoo we'll have T2 in two years, T5 is working well now T5C is up and running and connectivity is being improved if BD folds into BA.
No airlines believe this Fantasy Island will realistically happen. BAA doesn't even believe it, if they did, they'd be trying to run it. Now Boris famously does NOT do detail, he's broad brush and lazy. (I do love him though!)
Incidentally, there is no actual policy as yet, that's why we don't know whether this proposal depends on a closed LHR.
Incidentally I know CDG has all that space, but it's not really that much better as an airport experience, it's just spread out more. I think Silverstrata's view of LHR is about five years out of date. The complaint about T2 being a poor experience, present tense shows that much.